NationStates Jolt Archive

Good day to all nations, we of 'We are all Humanoids' firmy believe that the quite ridiculous proposals put before us recently are evidence in themselves that the powers the UN has over its members requires restiriction. We have therefore today placed a proposal before the UN that is repeated below, we ask that all nations who value their national soveriegnty endorse this proposal.

We have recently tabled a UN proposal which we have repeated below for your perusal. We urgently request that you endorse this proposal.

Restriction to the UN Charter
A resolution to increase democratic freedoms.


Category: The Furtherment of Democracy Strength: Strong Proposed by: We are all Humanoids
Description: 'We are All Humanoids' are a democratic state, with excellent civil liberites and Political freedoms. We see this as a desirous state. However we do not believe the United Nations (UN) to be a body that should have the ability to force individual beliefs or viewpoints on other nations.

We therefore put before this august body, that it has in the past exceeded it's rights, in as much as any matter that does not affect 'international relationships' should be advisory only.

We agree that while it may seem good for one nation to grant international liberation to all those of a certain viewpoint, such a matter cannot and should not be put before the UN but left entirely to an individual nation.

Further we will not under any circumstances condone any form of agression to back or oppose this proposal!

We therefore table this proposal;

"Whereas the UN is not a democratically elected International government, it should therefore have no jurisdiction within a nations boundaries unless invited so to do.

It is recognised that it is the fundamental responsibility of each member nation to govern their sovereign territory.

The UN shall be the primary forum for the debate of all international matters. The role of the UN is specifically with regard to International peace keeping, enforcement, refugees and matters of humanitarian aid. Further any other matter passed by majority within the UN forum will require all member nations to investigate ways of implementing such matters within their individual nations as best benefits their nation."

The Reasons we are putting this forward are laid out below, but basically we see the governance of a nation to be down to that nations government, not some other state with no say outside the UN. We see 3 types of proposals at this moment in time;

1, Proposals such as Gay marriage, Gun Control, Freedom from Spam, all such are surely not the realm of the UN! What possible right has the UN to tell you that you must allow some such in your nation, to allow something like this may well be against your countrypersons religious or personal beliefs.

2. Proposals such as 'All nations must immediately have a national nudity day' Such proposals are irrelevant, there will be no effect of such proposals so they are all hot air.

3. Dangerous proposals such as 'It is proposed that all of humanity have the right to free health care' While this is a nice theory the cost to some nations may well involve the starvation of 75% of a population!!

i agree with this but how would you make it not govern the nation. Should we add that the nation has a right to adopt it?

Each individual nation would be free to enforce or not any resolution that the UN passes, the only compulsory ones would be those of a worldwide nature, i.e. Plague, war, humanitarian aid etc.

PS this proposal has already been removed once, We are only asking that a debate be allowed, to remove it within 30 minutes of its original posting is not democratic, or even close to being fair!

A state is having the legitimacy to accept the majority demands, the minority must convince the majority of its use when they complain or ask for an evolution. How should we deal with a population who have the right to grow when we have limited productions? Can we first make sure we as UN make sure we agree to do research together on the limitation of society to grow, and how to respect its member even if they did not apply to a system on which they help, do we need to force the people to help us on feeding, on the water supply, on the leisure and the limits we have to give to the world on their liberty so we can keep it for the next generation?
I think we have to do a resolution on science research on cloning plants forever we are in need. For the water, h2o is made of two elements we can afford to use easily, for the mineral salt we have to deconstruct the sable or clone the one we need. We need to ask our population which is in reality all the delagates of the un, not their populations what we need, propose need and vote to have a percentages of what is more approved and what is a minority need, because of the weight of this world we can afford to have a un fund in which we can pick when a civilisations need to do its research because she did the survey on the populations. Start by the beginning which is the survival of the whole population, then we can build what we need to be happy together cause our survival is assured.
Whats wrong again?

PS this proposal has already been removed once, We are only asking that a debate be allowed, to remove it within 30 minutes of its original posting is not democratic, or even close to being fair!

See http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=77286&sid=2f8d74d0fa515aeec172368af4f8b69c re: Game Mechanics Proposals. This is what your proposal would be considered, and the reason it's being removed.

PS this proposal has already been removed once, We are only asking that a debate be allowed, to remove it within 30 minutes of its original posting is not democratic, or even close to being fair!
The debate is certainly within Forum rules. Your ability to discuss this issue is not being hampered. See, we're discussing it now.

Your proposal is a different matter. The proposal does not meet the test of Game Mechanics. Game and Forum rules clearly state that proposals that require adjusting the game rules are not permitted. The rules state that acceptance of the effects of UN proposals is a condition of UN membership. You can't change that without changing game mechanics. Therefore, the proposal is illegal and shouldn't have been posted. Please don't overtax the moderators by reposting it, if it has been removed for cause.



::Edit:: Sorry, Crystal Isle, didn't plan to step on your post.

Oh we are so very sorry, forgive us but we thought that the UN would be a good place to have a debate! Now forgive us but we thought that the UN's ability to force gay marriage or the murder of OAP's to be worthy of debate yet that same institution will not allow at least a debate of its charter, why? Because someone has to change the mechanics! I am sorry but that is extremely limp!

If this proposal is not allowed at least a debate then We will have to withdraw from the UN further we encourage all nations to do likewise, perhaps when the Un consists of only the mods they may examine the reasons why!!

The UN is flawed, and the membership diverse. If we don't follow common rules, only those with the loudest voices (or the biggest guns) will be heard. Learn to work within the rules, or go away. The UN won't change because you're unhappy with your choices.

You accepted the terms when you signed up. Don't like it? Resign. You won't be missed.

Frisbee,

We thankyou for your positive contribution to this debate, at this moment in time we are choosing to stay put in the hope we can change this chamber from within. You do your nation and yourself no favours by your apparent attitude, there is always more than one option and those who blindly believe otherwise do democracy no favours. If you have a point to make then state it, but "do as I say or leave" is not an argument more a playground bully, I did not give in to them as a kid and I will be damned if I do so now!

No biggie, just adjust your stance on issues to keep your nation where you want it to be.

Example: My country is now becoming an impoverished, Scandanavian Socialist type. In response, I raise the number of dictatorship type actions to my issues to balance. Just like the real U.N.

Sry Double Post.

This is ludacris! Why restrict the powers of A world Governing body just cuz your country doesnt want to follow a number of its laws? If you dont like the UN system and/or the laws it has passed, then i think its ur obligation to resign. That's a no brainer. The Purpose of the UN is to have that kind of power, to have such a system of partnership and equality between nations. It's serves its purpose not yours, so i think its ur responsibilty to quit not limit its purpose.

Marsaria will under no circumstances support your cause, and condemn it at every chance: Marsaria being a loyal ally to the UN.

If you have a point to make then state it, but "do as I say or leave" is not an argument more a playground bully, I did not give in to them as a kid and I will be damned if I do so now!
I didn't set the rules, nor am I saying you have to follow my bullying example. NationStates set the rules, and if you have a problem with that you really only have two choices - go away, or use the mechanism THEY provided.

I chose the latter. I saw a potential solution to a problem with the UN, and I went to the Technical forum with a carefully thought-out proposal that would help the game mechanics of the UN. The reception has been warm or better, and there is a reasonably good chance SalusaSecondus will implement some variant of my suggestion. Nobody is stopping your from doing that yourself, but you CAN'T do it from within a UN proposal. It's going to get killed every time.

When it comes to pouting like a schoolyard child, I'll have to defer that title to you. You're here pretending to be an adult leader of a country. Act like it.

OOC:Just thought I'd point out that the real U.N. is not an international body of law. It is an international body of suggestion backed up by economic sanctions when absolutly necessary. The purpose of the real U.N. is not to create domestic policy for its members. As long as we admit that the current N.S. U.N. is a laughingstock, I have no real problem.

OK Frisbee you win! We will quit as of midnight tonight, It seems there is no democracy within this UN and no chance of a debate resulting in a reasonable outcome. If everyone within an organisation blindly accepts the edits passed down from on high, free speech and open debate will die, ultimately as long as this UN continues down this road this UN will quickly become irrelevant!

We are not leaving due to the Euthanasia Bill we actually agree with Euthanasia, however, we cannot accept a non elected body having rights to enforce laws within a democratic nation. The people of We are all Humanoids have a voice in who they elect, only for this to be overturned and ignored by unelected Fascists and Communists within the unelected UN. We are sure you will not miss us, be equally sure we will not miss this UN!

There's no point having a debate if you hate the U.N just don't join it, it's simple really :)

Schweinfurt would support this proposal to restrict UN power over the sovereignty of our nation, which was recently violated when we were forced to allow euthanasia in our country.

PS this proposal has already been removed once, We are only asking that a debate be allowed, to remove it within 30 minutes of its original posting is not democratic, or even close to being fair!
What do you expect from the power-hungry bureaucracy of the UN? It is admirable for you to stand up to them, but to truly be effective as an anti-UN coalition you must work and debate where the UN cannot arbitrarily limit your liberties. Somewhat ironically, New Delawareans have joined the UN solely to ensure its powers do NOT encroach on our own sovereignty.

Governor James Ferdinand DuPont VI
The Colony of New Delaware Island

OOC: Plan your opposition on another, non-NS, forum and they cannot delete it. ;)

Everyone knows the U.N is run by power-hungry liberals but you have to learn to live with it, and just accept it, and Anti U.N coalitions don't work because the U.N is [OPTIONAL!!! :twisted:

The Empire of Heru Ur has this position on the nature of the U.N., it's membership, and the ridiculousness of the myriad of proposals presented by what we deem as ignorant, pandering politicians:

"The Empire of Heru Ur, herein referred to as "The Empire", reserves the right to uphold its sovereignty. Our hopes in joining the U.N. is too increase our understanding of our global neighbors, broaden the mutual respect we have for member nations who are similarily yoked, and to stem measures that might be severe or damaging to lesser nations while incurring no detrements to the generating nation.

However we will not allow these neighbors to affect the laws, views, beliefs, and overall policy of our nation. We will not be coerced into maintaining form and policy created by individuals who have not the slightest inkling of what long term and far-reaching effects their ludicrous proposals generate, and who appear to merely generate proposals to hear themselves speak.

The Empire takes issues with the U.N.'s apparent inability to effectively moderate useless proposals and callous ideas."